1.1.13-Frauleindrosselmeyer
Archivist's note: This write-up was posted several months after the other commentary. Brick!Club 1.1.13-fin de livre 1: What He Believed and What He Said Okay, I’ll admit I had to flick back to the Hapgood and meta before I had a full handle on this. IT’S WORDY. BUT GOOD. I am so incoherent about it it’s embarrassing, but it made me happy. «M. Bienvenu avait /et/e jadis, a\ en croire les r/ecits sur sa jeunesse et me^me sur sa virilit/e, un homme passionn/e, peut-e^tre violent..» Hugo. HUGO. The Priest With A Past! Now there’s a plot! You could’ve given us The Quiet Man. But no. «Il croyait le plus qu’il pouvait» «M B …avait dans l’a^me le grave respect de l’ombre.» These two phrases bookend the two chapters, and suddenly Hugo’s philosophising is RMTI. paraphrasing from the French The Bishop didn’t study God, he was dazzled by him. The apostle may be daring, but the bishop must be shy; abstract speculation makes one giddy. Geniuses strike through dogma to make their prayer a discussion, interrogation - this is direct religion, but full of anxiety and responsibility. Such speculation has moral utility, but it’s an arduous way to approach perfection. The Bishop takes the abridged* route ; he’s not a prophet or a magician, all he did was love. When he’s challenged on his beliefs, he replies that “If it’s a foolishness, the soul should be locked inside such foolishness like a pearl in an oyster.” He believed as much as he could. He had a deep respect for the shadows. …M Welcome’s not an overthinker, in short, and the idea here seems to be that overthinking unless you’re a “genius” is actually…harmful? Wasteful? Arduous? If you are a genius, then that’s great, keep on thinking, but you can still be a good person provided your heart’s in the right place even if you never have a crisis about your Lawful Good status. Which is confusing and intriguing me, because “Lawful Good working within a rotten system” is how I always think of Javert. And I like Myriel (based on book) but hate Javert (based on musical), so…we’ll see. I like these chapters a hell of a lot because it’s talking about finding the balance between finding out what’s really going on, and being able to function in society, and it’s not down on finding the truth (if you’re a “genius” who’s up to it) - but it defends the idea that it’s okay to be happy rather than right, which is a rare and wonderful thing. Harking back to how the guillotine really bothered Myriel, but he realised he could do nothing about the death penalty so focused on doing what good he could in other ways - and #that’s it #that’s the show So far the brick’s spoken about the importance of doing good but the chaotic nature of history, about little things adding up, about the strength it takes to not let the sheer volume of Les Miserables crush one entirely**. THAT’S THE SHOW. His “If it’s a foolishness…” response is great, too. Goddamn, I never expected chapters about religious faith not being questioned too deeply (which is a concept I have a personal vendetta against because it screwed me up baaaad) to be giving me happy feelings about idealism? But I love the pearl-in-an-oyster metaphor, the idea that a great moral ideal, even if it be impossible, be valuable and need protection. Very «On ne voit pas qu’avec le coeur». It’s a slow start, but I’m really liking Les Mis. It is frequently hilarious, and I’m not sure how often that’s intended, but it bucks the idea that good characters are boring, and in between the chats about furnishings and long-dead philosophers it frequently whams me with really interesting philosophy. It doesn’t feel old. Also, the God stuff? Waaaaay less obnoxious than I’d expected. Even the Christ parallels. *This chapter does not exist in my abridged version. SYMBOLISM. ** Yes, I made a punny. Blame Hugo.